THE DARK CITY
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.



 
HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityRegisterLog in

 

 Lhamaean as sole HQ?

Go down 
+16
Klaivex Charondyr
amishprn86
aurynn
django_unchained
Shinobi_8745
Laughingcarp
Sky Serpent
Timatron
RikuXIII
ulijikaru
average joe
skullmonkeyz
The_Burning_Eye
Skulnbonz
Count Adhemar
Minks
20 posters
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
average joe
Kabalite Warrior
average joe

Posts : 157
Join date : 2012-11-22
Location : Bristol, TN

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeFri Oct 10 2014, 16:18

@aurynn wrote:
Can someone confirm the wording from digital edition and/or different languages?

Good thought. I wouldn't be surprised if the French or German version actually references the old requirements.
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Archon
amishprn86

Posts : 4435
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 03:03

IDK what the digitals say, but by its wording (And at my local came to also) that you CAN take 1 model court as an HQ.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Drukhari: 10k+
SoB: 3k
AoS: BoC 9k, CoS 3k
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
Timatron

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 11:54

Well, I wouldn't play.
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
Klaivex Charondyr

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 12:51

Me neither. We have bad grammar in a lot of books, dont think thats a legitimate reason to abuse rules in friendly games with "Fluffy the Ur-Ghoul General"
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Archon
amishprn86

Posts : 4435
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 13:31

@Klaivex Charondyr wrote:
Me neither. We have bad grammar in a lot of books, dont think thats a legitimate reason to abuse rules in friendly games with "Fluffy the Ur-Ghoul General"

The Codex shows its an HQ. its in the HQ section, it says If you have an archon it doesnt take up a Slot.

To me its fine grammar.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Drukhari: 10k+
SoB: 3k
AoS: BoC 9k, CoS 3k
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
Klaivex Charondyr

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 13:39

Like the Splinter Racks and twin linked for the whole army? Are you going to abuse that too? RAW there is no room to argue otherwise.


Last edited by Klaivex Charondyr on Sun Oct 19 2014, 14:31; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Unorthodoxy
Beating A Different Drummer
Unorthodoxy

Posts : 839
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Western Washington

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 14:17

@Minks wrote:
Hi there, a quick question to those of you with the codex - going by the Court of the Archon's entry, it would be possible to take a sole Lhamaean as a hq choice, right? Seems a good way to free up 90+ points...

Illegal. An Archon ALLOWS you to take a Court. This is pretty obvious.

_________________
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Back to top Go down
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/
amishprn86
Archon
amishprn86

Posts : 4435
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 14:27

@Unorthodoxy wrote:
@Minks wrote:
Hi there, a quick question to those of you with the codex - going by the Court of the Archon's entry, it would be possible to take a sole Lhamaean as a hq choice, right? Seems a good way to free up 90+ points...

Illegal.  An Archon ALLOWS you to take a Court.  This is pretty obvious.

It says An Archon makes them a No FoC unit. They are in the HQ section as an HQ that can be made into a No FoC.

Hmmm we can ask Nova input for the Tournament coming up. or Dakka Dakka for more opinions too.

EDIT: Im not going to do it IF my oponent see a problem with it, I will do this if they come to the same conclusion like they did at my local.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Drukhari: 10k+
SoB: 3k
AoS: BoC 9k, CoS 3k
Back to top Go down
MyNameDidntFit
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2014-05-13

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 15:14

I see no reason against this. Fluffwise I could certainly see an Archon's Court representing him on the battlefield when he has somewhere else to be.

_________________
Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Tdc-li11
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
Klaivex Charondyr

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 15:27

Because we regularly see CEOs putting their Dogs, Bodyguards or Prostitutes in charge when they are on vacation...
Im pretty sure the Archons favorite Ur-Ghoul (which is described as mindless creature) will represent his Archon quite well on the battlefield and his Kabalites will have no issues following the howls (incapable of speech) of a creature which is hunted for fun by even the lowest commorites.

Yes... I guess that nails the fluff perfectly.
Back to top Go down
Timatron
Sybarite
Timatron

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 16:54

The first part of the sentence: "For each Archon included....." is what is called a specification of requirement; we need an Archon to take this selection. The end of the sentence: "......that does not take up a slot...." is further information of how to incorporate this unit into a list. This does not alter the fact that teh sentence begins the way it does. They have just made two sentences into one.

I have spoken to Mike Brandt about this, and pretty sure it won't be permitted for NOVA. Rightly so, as it will open the floodgates and set a terrible precedent for RAW being blithely accepted regardless of common sense. That would be the beginning of the end as far as I see it.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
Count Adhemar

Posts : 7568
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 17:12

@Timatron wrote:
The first part of the sentence: "For each Archon included....." is what is called a specification of requirement; we need an Archon to take this selection.  The end of the sentence: "......that does not take up a slot...." is further information of how to incorporate this unit into a list. This does not alter the fact that teh sentence begins the way it does. They have just made two sentences into one.

I have spoken to Mike Brandt about this, and pretty sure it won't be permitted for NOVA. Rightly so, as it will open the floodgates and set a terrible precedent for RAW being blithely accepted regardless of common sense. That would be the beginning of the end as far as I see it.

That would be the same guy who gave Wave Serpents a 270 degree fire arc with their shield?

_________________
Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 YhBv3Wk
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
average joe
Kabalite Warrior
average joe

Posts : 157
Join date : 2012-11-22
Location : Bristol, TN

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 20:32

@average joe wrote:
@aurynn wrote:
Can someone confirm the wording from digital edition and/or different languages?

Good thought.  I wouldn't be surprised if the French or German version actually references the old requirements.  

What happened to the French and German denizens? or did I miss a post? I really would like to know how the other language versions state the rule particularly since those rulebooks had a much better written splinter rack rule.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeSun Oct 19 2014, 20:36

@average joe wrote:
@average joe wrote:
@aurynn wrote:
Can someone confirm the wording from digital edition and/or different languages?

Good thought.  I wouldn't be surprised if the French or German version actually references the old requirements.  

What happened to the French and German denizens?  or did I miss a post?  I really would like to know how the other language versions state the rule particularly since those rulebooks had a much better written splinter rack rule.  

Its always a good start. Its an official document and can be considered a ruling in and of itself. For almost anything.
Back to top Go down
Unorthodoxy
Beating A Different Drummer
Unorthodoxy

Posts : 839
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Western Washington

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 00:22

Something this obvious needs no clarification. The EMPHASIS is being ignored by some. But if someone shows up to my tournaments, they can forget about trying these shenanigans. The Dark City is not dakkadakka. We mostly seem to avoid these kinds of discussions. Ake the high road.

_________________
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Back to top Go down
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/
Timatron
Sybarite
Timatron

Posts : 443
Join date : 2013-03-12
Location : Brighton

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 01:11

Unorthodoxy, I couldn't agree more. Count, no idea, I can't see how 'treat as a front facing weapon' could be interpreted that way personally but I wasn't talking about past rulings. I was just saying I spoke to him online and he told me that he thought it was wrong, that's all.
Back to top Go down
MyNameDidntFit
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2014-05-13

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 11:16

@Klaivex Charondyr wrote:
Because we regularly see CEOs putting their Dogs, Bodyguards or Prostitutes in charge when they are on vacation...
Im pretty sure the Archons favorite Ur-Ghoul (which is described as mindless creature) will represent his Archon quite well on the battlefield and his Kabalites will have no issues following the howls (incapable of speech) of a creature which is hunted for fun by even the lowest commorites.

Yes... I guess that nails the fluff perfectly.

Just as we regularly see CEOs personally going out on every little job (why is the Archon in a 500pt Raid?) when they could send a trusted watchdog (Sslyth) or Courtesan (Lhamaean) in their stead?

An Ur-Ghul or Medusae makes less sense. Though Medusae could be justified as being sent to record the battle for the Archon to relive later (as we know they are capable of regurgitating the emotional 'footage' of events to an Archon).

You must understand for this, however, that the Kabalites are still following the Achon's orders--he has likely provided them with orders at the outset and is confident that they can do their jobs... because if they can't I'm sure he will find a new role for them if they return alive.

Which is to say a unit in the HQ slot is not necessarily barking orders in the middle of combat and thus doesn't need to be a leader.
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
Klaivex Charondyr

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 11:32

Quote :

Just as we regularly see CEOs personally going out on every little job (why is the Archon in a 500pt Raid?) when they could send a trusted watchdog (Sslyth) or Courtesan (Lhamaean) in their stead?

No, even then they would send some assistant managers (Dracon, Klaivex, Blood Bride) and not their Dogs (Ur-Ghoul), Prostitutes (Lhamean), Hired Muscle (Sslyth) or Drug Dealer (Medusid).

The Kabalites absolutely NEED to be monitored all the time (which is clearly pictured in the books) else they either slack, kill the guys on the Raider next to them for fun and profit or take the price for themselves to sell it (and themselves) to the highes bidder.
If they return alive the Archon will find himself with no loot and no more Kabalites as they just defect to another Kabal and pay them with the stuff they just got from the raid.
A Sslyth has no authority at all. No powerbase behind him, no organization an is (as described in the books and codex) not the brightest (Archons like them because they are to stupid to even think of betrayal).

So no. Fluffwise its horrible. And ruleswise its just abuse of poor wording.
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
The_Burning_Eye

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 11:34

It's not even a case of 'representing the archon' since they can't be chosen as your warlord, it's more giving their chosen representative additional troops to fulfil their task.

That being said, quite frankly I don't want to take a court on its own, I either want them arriving in a specific place (in which case I take an Archon with a WWP, or I don't take them at all).

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
MyNameDidntFit
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2014-05-13

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 11:44

@Klaivex Charondyr wrote:
So no. Fluffwise its horrible. And ruleswise its just abuse of poor wording.
Ah, so in your games when your Archon dies (to be back later, courtesy of the Haemonculi), does the entire Kabal disband? Does your Archon lead every raid?

I am not trying to limit what you wish to do with the fluff, but to state outright that none of these circumstances could occur (bar Ur-Ghul, we agree there, that would require either an exceptional Ur-Ghul with a personality or other such--not that that is beyond the scope of the fluff) is pure poppycock. 40k is a foundation upon which any reasonable fluff can be built.

That your Kabal is fill with idiots who would run off to another Kabal the moment they are out of the Archon's sight is your fluff. I like to believe that my Archon runs his Kabal better than that and can trust that his soldiers will do their jobs as the consequences of doing otherwise are far more dire than the benefit of seeking another Kabal to join.

You're not going to be swayed, of course, but that's your prerogative--mine is to allow others to build their fluff as they wish. Have a lovely day!
Back to top Go down
Klaivex Charondyr
Wych
Klaivex Charondyr

Posts : 918
Join date : 2014-09-08

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 11:59

Quote :
Ah, so in your games when your Archon dies (to be back later, courtesy of the Haemonculi), does the entire Kabal disband? Does your Archon lead every raid?

No, but a qualified underling from the ranks of the Bloodbrides (as Archon Xelian of the Blades of Desire Kabal was represented by her favorite Bloodbride Aez’ashya) or Inccubi (as Archon Krailach of the Real Eternal Kabal is represented by Morr, his personal Bodyguard) or Trueborn Dracons (as... nearly everyone).
Not by Sslyth, not by Ur-Ghoul, not by Medusid and not by Lhamean.

And yes, if there is no suitable substitute the Kabal pretty much dispands and is absorbed into others. Ordinary day in the dark city.
Back to top Go down
MyNameDidntFit
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2014-05-13

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 12:33

Incubi = Bodyguard.
Sslyth = Bodyguard.

Interesting how one is acceptable but the other is not.

Our disagreement comes to two points:

1) I do believe you have a very different view of a Kabal than I do--you seem to consider them more or less on the level of Tyrannids: incapable of operating without direct leadership. On the other hand I rather more think that the organised military of the Dark Eldar are, while backstabbing and devious, able to see through a raid without the Archon, Succubus, or even a representative thereof being 2 feet away.

2) The HQ role does not necessitate a direct commander. It's simply an arbitrary gameplay term that defines the type of unit you might field in an army--so as to avoid an army consisting entirely of Archons, for example.



I personally have no desire to use a Court as my sole HQ, but I do not like that you believe your view of the fluff gives you the right to blatantly refuse that which someone else might have concocted for themselves--when well within their rights are they to do so.

_________________
Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Tdc-li11
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
The_Burning_Eye

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 12:46

@MyNameDidntFit wrote:
The HQ role does not necessitate a direct commander. It's simply an arbitrary gameplay term that defines the type of unit you might field in an army--so as to avoid an army consisting entirely of Archons, for example.

Very much this - your warlord (ie, the one giving the orders) can be any character in your army (sybarite, solarite, aberration, you name it so long as it has character in its entry, it can be your warlord) and as such, the notion of a solitary lhamaean/sslyth/ur-ghul/medusa being given control of the army becuase they're there 'to represent the archon' isnt' the case - the warlord is the one who has control of the army in the archon's absence and the presence of a court without one would, in my opinion, simply be a case of him beefing up the authority of said nominated warlord with his own personal bully-boys.

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
MyNameDidntFit
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2014-05-13

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 12:52

Aye, that is certainly another way of putting it, Eye.

In that way I would then picture Fluffy the Ur-Ghul as a token of the Archon's favour: "ooh, look, Sybarite Johnson has Archon Richard's pet with him. Truly is he favoured!"

_________________
Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Tdc-li11
Back to top Go down
The_Burning_Eye
Trueborn
The_Burning_Eye

Posts : 2501
Join date : 2012-01-16
Location : Rutland - UK

Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitimeMon Oct 20 2014, 13:00

Indeed, and when Sybarite Johnson demands the surrender of the enemy, with his boot on the marine captain's neck ( lol! ) fluffy leans round from behind, shakes a clenched fist and goes 'yeah!'

_________________
Tan? You're joking, I'm a gamer, you're lucky I'm wearing deodorant!

My Blog - The Burning Eye Blog (check it out - comments always welcome)

My Project Log - Visions of the Burning Eye

My Gaming Log - Chronicles of the Burning Eye

My Club - MAD Wargaming

My Fluff - Kabal of the Burning Eye, Cult of the Shadowed Blade and Coven of Distorted Perfection
Back to top Go down
http://theburningeye.blogspot.com
Sponsored content




Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Lhamaean as sole HQ?   Lhamaean as sole HQ? - Page 2 I_icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Lhamaean as sole HQ?
Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: